The president’s approval rating has edged up three points from last month and is up six points from November. The last time Obama’s approval rating was at 50% or above was last May, as a result of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and it stayed there for about a month before fading…

The survey suggests that the contentious Republican primary season has decreased enthusiasm among Republican voters, virtually erasing the “enthusiasm gap” that promised to provide the ultimate GOP presidential nominee with a major advantage in the fall. In October, 64% of Republicans said that they were extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president, compared to only 43% of Democratic voters. GOP enthusiasm since that time has tumbled 13 points, to 51%, virtually the same as the Democrats’ level of enthusiasm.

Back in October, the field was still huge and we were proceeding apace through the “anyone can win” wheel o’ frontrunners. Three months later, when the January poll was taken, Romney had just won New Hampshire (and Iowa, we thought at the time) so the race suddenly felt like a foregone conclusion. A month later the race is unsettled again, but it’s nastier than ever and no one’s thrilled with their options. I wonder what the numbers look like next month if we get another good jobs report and if the vote splits three ways on Super Tuesday.

Beyond that, Ron Brownstein of National Journal noted yesterday that Obama’s numbers head to head against Romney across various demographics are starting to look a lot like his numbers against McCain four years ago, a sign that the disgruntled Hopenchange coalition might be piecing itself back together. Of special note: The One does six points better against Romney among white women voters than he did against McCain in 2008, and bear in mind that Romney is the stronger of the two top Republican candidates among women right now. He leads Santorum in that demographic by nine points, which is nothing new for RS: He lost women in his 2000 Senate victory and got clobbered among women in his landslide defeat to Bob Casey in 2006. Gonna be a lot of gender politics, starting with his old comments about contraception being “harmful to women,” in the general election if he’s the nominee.

On the other hand:

Romney and Gingrich are perceived as candidates of the rich whereas Santorum is seen as more blue-collar. But even as between Mitt and Newt, there’s a distinction. When tea partiers are asked whether Gingrich favors the rich or the middle class, they split 35/53. (Santorum’s split is 15/65.) When they’re asked about Romney, though, behold:

If even a majority of core conservative voters thinks one of the GOP’s candidates is biased towards the rich then Team Hopenchange clearly has very fertile populist ground on which to attack him in the general. For further reading on that, I’ll leave you with this Nate Silver piece provocatively titled, “Why Obama Will Embrace the 99 Percent.” In key swing states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, and Indiana, there are enough working-class white voters to make a big difference to Obama’s margin against Romney if he can exploit perceptions that Mitt’s in the pocket of the, ahem, “one percent.” Santorum would be much tougher for him to beat on that point — but of course, potentially much easier for him to beat among women. Who’s more electable ultimately?

These swing states fall into three regional tiers. The Rocky Mountain tier includes Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico. The Rust Belt tier includes Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And the Dixie tier includes North Carolina, Florida and Virginia.

Across these states, Santorum performs about as well as Romney in matchups with the president.

The swing-state voters back Obama over Romney by 8 percentage points and Santorum by 9 points.

Note: Obama does trail in certain individual swing states. In Ohio, Romney leads him by six and Santorum leads him by three.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

“If Mitt is at the top – be prepared for another 2 years of a Dem Senate

NVA Patriot on February 15, 2012 at 9:49 PM”

Wrong Romney can win, and if he does he has a decision to make. He may just coast along or become a great president by setting us on a proper fiscal path. People here are disturbed by the polls, I am disturbed by the people listening to the polls. Honestly, we don’t know if any of these people will keep their promises once inside the office. We can just for the moment have to concentrate on getting the current lying snake out of the WH and hope the new guy learns from the former’s mistakes.

Well, first off this is obviously a push poll. “Favors the rich” vs “Favors the poor?” That’s supposed to be neutral?

Secondly, they don’t tell us the reweighting, which is suspicious. Maybe they didn’t reweight at all, but I doubt it.

Finally, these head-to-head polls mean little in Feb. Obama is still down double-digits in the passion index among LVs and he CANNOT win while that is true. Meanwhile he is doing a great job pissing everyone off, and gas prices will reach $5 this summer so don’t count on the economy helping him any.

The Tea Party elected Scott Brown, the ultimate Massachessetts RINO, and celebrated his victory, because it was a victory of a united GOP. Mitt Romney was first to endorse Marco Rubio against Charlie Crist –

Priscilla on February 15, 2012 at 9:52 PM

The Tea Party elected Scott Brown. The Tea Party was responsible for Marco Rubio’s rise and win, not Mitt Romney. No squish/base fairytale “coalition”. The squishes at first ignored the TP and the base; then they rode the TP/base energy to wins in the House and Senate; and then spent most of the following year cursing the TP for losing the Senate. There’s your idiotic “coalition”.

Wrong Romney can win, and if he does he has a decision to make. He may just coast along or become a great president by setting us on a proper fiscal path. People here are disturbed by the polls, I am disturbed by the people listening to the polls. Honestly, we don’t know if any of these people will keep their promises once inside the office. We can just for the moment have to concentrate on getting the current lying snake out of the WH and hope the new guy learns from the former’s mistakes.

1. Take fiscal conservatism seriously. My generation has no hope for the future because we feel that there is no future financially speaking. I realize that this is no different than most conservatives but it’s a biggie.

2. Learn to adapt to technology. When Republicans sponsor garbage like SOPA and go out of their way to try and censor things they don’t understand (video games being a major one) it makes the whole Conservative movement look like a bunch of ignorant old fogeys and causes people to run screaming to the Dem party.

3. Stop shoving religion down our throats. It’s really hard to make people believe that Conservatism stands for more freedom when the hardcore Social Conservatives are busy doing their best fire and brimstone act. This is another thing that send people running to the arms of the other party.

4. Communicate Conservatism better on TV. One Conservative news station and one conservative business station is a pretty sad representation particularly when FOX has a severe accuracy problem. You’re telling me that no one on the right has the wherewithal to do a conservative version of Current TV? If conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1, then why can’t we communicate better?

That’s the short list. Every time the Republican party puts its foot in its mouth there is an old adage that comes to mind: “The Democrats are the party of evil, the Republicans are the party of Stupid.” And sadly, people would rather vote for evil than stupid. Wisen up Repubs, you are in the process of committing political seppuku.

Ok, got it. You really think Romney could peel off that many D-leaning independents, though, as opposed to just splitting the R vote?

Nom de Boom on February 15, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I’m saying it is a distinct possibility. And if I am Mitt Romney and I lose to Santorum in the primary, and I believe Santorum is doomed to lose and I can win, I would risk it.

Mostly I agree. But the base willl either fall behind the nominee or face 4 more years of an Obama type. Where do you see it going? A republican nominee will always be beholden to the base, just as O’bozo nixed the keystone pipeline.

WryTrvllr on February 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you talking 2012, or Romney’s potential reelection campaign in 2016? In 2016, Romney would run as an indie again. He won’t need the Republicans, although they are sure to run someone against him.

In 2012 it is just the scenario I outlined, with Romney running a conservative centrist independent campaign, counting on peeling off moderates who are disillusioned with Obama, and on conservatives abandoning Santorum when they see that a split conservative vote would hand Obama the win. Santorum can’t win in a three way race. Either Romney or Obama can. IMHO.

1) in 2012, people will LIE to pollsters like never before because nobody will trust them with poll answers negative towards Obama. Obama’s Truth Watch Attack Team is not being underestimated.

2) Polls are generally considered notorious for push-polling, weighted sampling, and having vested interests in creating polls that will support a pre-determined outcome. Most people don’t care whether it’s Rasmussen, Gallup, ABC News, NBC or whoever – they are ALL THE SAME in most people’s minds.

3) the real campaign against Obama hasn’t even begun yet, and the polls really only have a one-sided media onslaught to poll from. Our guys are so damn busy shooting at each other right now, Obama just skates. For now. When he’s forced to defend his record, and is called out in what will be a very nasty campaign on all fronts, his “real” support is very thin.

I can’t believe that in February 2012, anyone is taking any Obama Vs anybody polling seriously. 2012 is the year to regard all such polling with extreme skepticism, right up to Nov. 6.

You need to take a look around. Underemployment is around 16%, gas prices which hit the middle and lower classes much harder than the affluent are going up again. That affects the cost of EVERYTHING.

piglet on February 15, 2012 at 9:50 PM

FOOD prices are going up. Steadily and inexorably. And if you think AJsMommie doesn’t see that, you’re out of your mind. Not one person I know of thinks the economy is “getting better”. I still know a handful of “he did the best he could with what BOOOOOOOOSH left him” but even they are getting fewer, and quieter.

So I want someone who talks to the issues, who wants to repeal Obamacare, who thinks that illegal immigrants are criminals, who wants to stop expanding the dependent class. Not someone whose main claim to fame is restructuring bankrupt companies. Yeah, sure, there’s a spot in an administration for someone who knows economics, but it’s not the top spot. The top spot is for the one with a broad, optimistic vision of the future that depends upon the success of individuals, not the largesse of the government.

In 2012 it is just the scenario I outlined, with Romney running a conservative centrist independent campaign, counting on peeling off moderates who are disillusioned with Obama, and on conservatives abandoning Santorum when they see that a split conservative vote would hand Obama the win. Santorum can’t win in a three way race. Either Romney or Obama can. IMHO.

Mr. Arkadin on February 15, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Pretty interesting. In many ways, he could be the perfect 3rd party candidate.

Not when you all get to whining. “it’s the meeeeedia’s fault.” Sadly, unlike Mitt, I have no need for an accountant.

I’d say $15 trillion speaks for itself, but there’s definitely room for a couple trillion more just to make it clear to even the most obtuse urban elitist.

Nom de Boom on February 15, 2012 at 9:58 PM

So, ask yourself why the Republicans have so little credibility on this issue? Is it because the only balanced budget since the 60′s was offered by a Democratic President? Is it because they started two wars without paying for them? Is it because they run around the country trumpeting more tax cuts? Is it because they’re obviously a gang of bozos racing to the bottom in an attempt to secure the vote of a gang of right-wing freaks?

1) There is no chance whatsoever that Obama will be re-lected – none.
2) This is because to do so would require national insanity.
3) America is not insane – not yet.
4) When it comes right down to it and people are getting ready to pull the lever on election day, will they really be prepared to vote for 4 more years of THIS guy? Really?
5) Gas prices are headed to $5 a gallon.

Romney ends up defeating Santorum for the nomination for a few reasons: Santorum is not qualified to be POTUS because he has no management experience whatsoever and Santorum is a bigger RINO than Romney ever hoped to be. This will all be exposed.

Romney will pick Rubio as his running mate and charge up the Republican base just as McCain picking Sarah Palin did, only better.

Republicans win in a walk and take the House and Senate. It won’t even be close.

Anyone who looks at the polling now and worries honestly doesn’t have a clue. I’m not worried even a little.

So, ask yourself why the Republicans have so little credibility on this issue? Is it because the only balanced budget since the 60′s was offered by a Democratic President? Is it because they started two wars without paying for them? Is it because they run around the country trumpeting more tax cuts? Is it because they’re obviously a gang of bozos racing to the bottom in an attempt to secure the vote of a gang of right-wing freaks?

At any rate, the Republican brand is clearly soiled.

urban elitist on February 15, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Oh, I think we all know what’s soiled around here. Go change. You’re stinking up the place.

I’m going to be optimistic, and say that once the GOP Lord of the Flies race for the nomination is past, 0bama will no longer be able to look good simply by comparison to the spectacle of Republican candidates eating each other alive.

All great, valid points, but only point 3 has anything to do with social conservatism, and it’s still vague. I’m really curious, though.

Nom de Boom on February 15, 2012 at 10:07 PM

I would argue that point 2 also has to do with social conservatism. I still remember when people were all over Fox screaming about nudity in “Mass Effect” and that you could edit the female character’s bust size, neither of which was true. Yet the social cons kept screaming “but what about the children?” despite the fact they had never played the game and were complaining based on here say. Not to mention the numerous attempts to censor videogames when there is already a rating system in place which is actually enforced at retailers unlike the ratings on DVDs.

As for point 3 allow me to expound: I have been told multiple times by social conservatives that I’m going to burn in hell because I don’t believe in the exact same interpretation of the bible that they do. I have been sworn at, condemned to hell, mocked and derided by the so called tolerant social cons. I’m not the only one here as I have heard many tales of people being verbally assaulted just for have religious differences with the social cons. It just seems that far too many people allow religion to think for them instead of using it to enrich their lives and the lives of those around them.

I feel that religion should be treated like a gun: it’s okay to have one, it’s okay to be proud of it, but don’t wave it around in public and don’t shove it in other people’s faces. Constantly condemning everyone around you isn’t a very good way to gain allies. As Reagan said: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”

Have 3 days of binge drinking the weekend following election day, trade in my SUV for a VW golf in anticipation of $5 gas as the norm, short the stock market, spend several sick days for vacation in anticipation of further job losses in my company and plan on upping my job skills.

I’m quite looking forward to it as I do see him being re-elected. IMO, not enough people and certainly the current GOP congressional leadership care what happens to America; I “hope” I’m wrong.

I mean, was there some coherent point you thought you were making? All I saw was a bunch of hypocritical, paranoid screeching. You come in here acting like you’re the voice of reason and sanity when you’re equally as partisan and hyperbolic as the worst conservahack on Hot Air. Give it a rest.

1) There is no chance whatsoever that Obama will be re-lected – none.
2) This is because to do so would require national insanity.
3) America is not insane – not yet.
4) When it comes right down to it and people are getting ready to pull the lever on election day, will they really be prepared to vote for 4 more years of THIS guy? Really?
5) Gas prices are headed to $5 a gallon.

Romney ends up defeating Santorum for the nomination for a few reasons: Santorum is not qualified to be POTUS because he has no management experience whatsoever and Santorum is a bigger RINO than Romney ever hoped to be. This will all be exposed.

Romney will pick Rubio as his running mate and charge up the Republican base just as McCain picking Sarah Palin did, only better.

Republicans win in a walk and take the House and Senate. It won’t even be close.

Anyone who looks at the polling now and worries honestly doesn’t have a clue. I’m not worried even a little.

mitchellvii on February 15, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Well said. You mirror my feelings exactly although I think that Santorum will play a much bigger role before things are over. I don’t think a Romney/Santorum ticket is out of the question.

I would argue that point 2 also has to do with social conservatism. I still remember when people were all over Fox screaming about nudity in “Mass Effect” and that you could edit the female character’s bust size, neither of which was true. Yet the social cons kept screaming “but what about the children?” despite the fact they had never played the game and were complaining based on here say. Not to mention the numerous attempts to censor videogames when there is already a rating system in place which is actually enforced at retailers unlike the ratings on DVDs.

As for point 3 allow me to expound: I have been told multiple times by social conservatives that I’m going to burn in hell because I don’t believe in the exact same interpretation of the bible that they do. I have been sworn at, condemned to hell, mocked and derided by the so called tolerant social cons. I’m not the only one here as I have heard many tales of people being verbally assaulted just for have religious differences with the social cons. It just seems that far too many people allow religion to think for them instead of using it to enrich their lives and the lives of those around them.

I feel that religion should be treated like a gun: it’s okay to have one, it’s okay to be proud of it, but don’t wave it around in public and don’t shove it in other people’s faces. Constantly condemning everyone around you isn’t a very good way to gain allies. As Reagan said: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”

(sorry if I rambled there, bad habit of mine)

ManFromNowhere on February 15, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I’m going to quote the whole post because I think you’ve made some good points here. I can see point 2 now that you put it in that light.

As for the rest, particularly your anecdotes about your shabby treatment at the hands of social conservatives, let me just say that I know exactly what you mean, and from personal experience. Do you find analogs to the abusive behavior in the speeches or statements of “official” conservative leaders, say Santorum for example? Or is it more of a potential threat that you could see developing into that kind of behavior if the right person were to win office?

All this talk about Romney vs. Santorum vs. Gingrich vs. Paul, about deficits and debts, about assaults on religious freedom is all meaningless. Face it. This election will turn on the condition of the economy on election day. So what are you doing about it? Spending money you don’t need to be spending? You might as well send that money directly to Obama’s reelection campaign.

All conservatives should be going totally Galt. If you don’t need it to survive, don’t buy it. Groceries? Yeah. Restaurant meals? No. You want to remodel your bathroom? Can it really not wait until November?

Do you want to tell your grandchildren that back in 2012 you didn’t do everything you could to preserve liberty in this once-great nation? I don’t.

As for point 3 allow me to expound: I have been told multiple times by social conservatives that I’m going to burn in hell because I don’t believe in the exact same interpretation of the bible that they do. I have been sworn at, condemned to hell, mocked and derided by the so called tolerant social cons. I’m not the only one here as I have heard many tales of people being verbally assaulted just for have religious differences with the social cons. It just seems that far too many people allow religion to think for them instead of using it to enrich their lives and the lives of those around them.

ManFromNowhere on February 15, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I call BS on this. I know lots and lots of conservatives and not a single one of them would swear at you or mock you because you don’t believe the way they do. The most religious that I know might worry about you and pray for you, and then only if you were leading some sort of lifestyle they thought was mortally sinful.

There are bigots of course, but they’re not representative of nor do they speak for social conservatives as a whole. To broad brush the social conservatives because of the actions of bigots is disingenuous and discriminatory. It’s sort of like branding all gays as jerks because of the actions of a militant few – something that most conservatives definitely do NOT do, at least in my experience.

I think you’re overreacting to honest disagreement, or else using a tiny minority to tar a much larger population.

I think you’re overreacting to honest disagreement, or else using a tiny minority to tar a much larger population.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Seriously, as a born-and-bred, Southern by the grace of God Christian conservative, we can be a pretty snotty bunch when we want to be. It’s an ugly trait that is far too common, and I would rather overstate it than minimize it. It needs to stop.

As for the rest, particularly your anecdotes about your shabby treatment at the hands of social conservatives, let me just say that I know exactly what you mean, and from personal experience. Do you find analogs to the abusive behavior in the speeches or statements of “official” conservative leaders, say Santorum for example? Or is it more of a potential threat that you could see developing into that kind of behavior if the right person were to win office?

Nom de Boom on February 15, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Again, I call BS. Please bring up a specific situation. At that point, I can almost certainly show that the individual is a bigot, not a conservative. Social conservatives tend to be tolerant, just not accepting. Even when it comes to abortion, social conservatives tend to focus on what they consider the crime – the murder of the child – and the criminal – the abortionist – rather than try to stigmatize the mother. Social conservatives don’t hate gays, they just think that marriage is between a man and a woman.

In fact, I’ve found that it’s almost always the Leftists that inflame the rhetoric, bringing up terms like “knuckle draggers” and “bible thumpers” and “Neanderthals”. I’ve found that most social conservatives (including many on this list) try to police themselves and those around them to avoid the more personal attacks and focus on the issues.

Disclaimer: I’m socially conservative on several issues. But you knew that already, didn’t you? :)

1) in 2012, people will LIE to pollsters like never before because nobody will trust them with poll answers negative towards Obama. Obama’s Truth Watch Attack Team is not being underestimated.

2) Polls are generally considered notorious for push-polling, weighted sampling, and having vested interests in creating polls that will support a pre-determined outcome. Most people don’t care whether it’s Rasmussen, Gallup, ABC News, NBC or whoever – they are ALL THE SAME in most people’s minds.

3) the real campaign against Obama hasn’t even begun yet, and the polls really only have a one-sided media onslaught to poll from. Our guys are so damn busy shooting at each other right now, Obama just skates. For now. When he’s forced to defend his record, and is called out in what will be a very nasty campaign on all fronts, his “real” support is very thin.

I can’t believe that in February 2012, anyone is taking any Obama Vs anybody polling seriously. 2012 is the year to regard all such polling with extreme skepticism, right up to Nov. 6.

Harbingeing on February 15, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Excellent points. Poll dancing should be a sport. Axelrod sweats the most.

Even when it comes to abortion, social conservatives tend to focus on what they consider the crime – the murder of the child – and the criminal – the abortionist – rather than try to stigmatize the mother. Social conservatives don’t hate gays, they just think that marriage is between a man and a woman

The hilarious thing is the case that they find sacred which led to abortion -Griswold actually states that the state can regulate who gets married.

Seriously, as a born-and-bred, Southern by the grace of God Christian conservative, we can be a pretty snotty bunch when we want to be. It’s an ugly trait that is far too common, and I would rather overstate it than minimize it. It needs to stop.

Nom de Boom on February 15, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Sorry, but the folks I know just aren’t that way. One of my favorite places in the country is Dothan, AL. It’s an awfully conservative place, but I’ve never heard a derogatory word spoken from the good, God-loving people I know there.

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve heard bigotry. Bigots exist in any group of folks, but it’s neither particular to or even more prevalent among conservatives. I argue that Leftists tend to be more bigoted than anyone; just listen to Rachel Maddow for a moment to hear what intolerance sounds like.

Uh oh. The illiterate electorate strikes again. Seriously, who the heck are these people? Before I sink into the depths of eeyore-ish despair…I can masochistically await the summer of $5 gas. That will make me wanna punch my own mama…so I can imagine what it will do to the vaunted independents.

Sorry, but polls usually are right on the money. They showed Clinton pounding Dole and Obama pounding McCain (after economic meltdown) and were right on the money. Obama is surging in every single poll coming out, whether it be NYT, Rasmussen, CNN, Fox, etc. Reagan rode an economic recovery to a landslide in 84 and the same thing is happening now. IMO, Obama will have a significant lead when the nominee is decided and the election will seem a mere formality and the public will tune the whole thing out by the summer, which is what happened with Clinton/Dole in 96.

Sorry, but polls usually are right on the money. They showed Clinton pounding Dole and Obama pounding McCain (after economic meltdown) and were right on the money. Obama is surging in every single poll coming out, whether it be NYT, Rasmussen, CNN, Fox, etc. Reagan rode an economic recovery to a landslide in 84 and the same thing is happening now. IMO, Obama will have a significant lead when the nominee is decided and the election will seem a mere formality and the public will tune the whole thing out by the summer, which is what happened with Clinton/Dole in 96.

If we lose even fiscal cons to Obama then y’all deserve what you get. For months, I have heard social issues don’t matter in this election. Apparently that only applies if the candidate shares your social agenda. If he doesn’t, suddenly they matter immensely.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Game, set and match.

No matter how desperately you scream, cry and drum your widdle feetsies on the kitchen linoleum: you simply cannot have it both ways, CINOs. If the votes of the conservative base are so vitally important to the success of your Plastic Pompadour’s candidacy, then they’re absolutely important enough for you (and him) to afford our political needs and desires more than simple lip service… even if that means sacrificing a handful of your precious, fickle, never-ever-EVER-there-for-you-come-November “moderates” and “independents.”

Stating his belief that the minimum wage ought to be automatically tied to the rate of inflation, or similar economic indicators, does nothing whatsoever to “reassure the base” — a not-insignificant portion of whom are small business owners, thank you — and believing otherwise utterly belies the self-proclaimed stance of principled “fiscal conservatism” Mittens’ rabid online jihadis enjoy assuming, evidently just for the sheer merry hell of it.

Of course, the easiest, most effective means possible for Mittens to “reassure the base,” obviously — and one which absolutely would have made a concrete difference, had he only done so right from the outset — would have been to simply state: “I realize now that RomneyCare was a mistake; a well-intentioned one, certainly, and one which may well have fit with the stated desires of a majority of Massachusetts residence at the time — but inarguably and irrevocably a mistake nonetheless… both for its legitimizing of further needless state intrusion into the personal lives and medical decisions of private citizens, and for its regrettably serving as the direct precursor to ObamaCare.” Such frankness and humility, delivered with forcefulness and sincerity, most assuredly would have won over a substantial majority of a conservative voting base all but ravenous for someone in greater synch with their fears and concerns than Romney gives any outward indication of being.

So, ask yourself why the Republicans have so little credibility on this issue? Is it because the only balanced budget since the 60′s was offered by a Democratic President? Is it because they started two wars without paying for them? Is it because they run around the country trumpeting more tax cuts? Is it because they’re obviously a gang of bozos racing to the bottom in an attempt to secure the vote of a gang of right-wing freaks?

At any rate, the Republican brand is clearly soiled.

urban elitist on February 15, 2012 at 10:13 PM

On another page I looked down my nose at you and stated that you are a graduate of a public school education. I now regret that remark realizing that I should have set the bar lower for you( as if that wasn’t low enough).

In 2012 it is just the scenario I outlined, with Romney running a conservative centrist independent campaign, counting on peeling off moderates who are disillusioned with Obama, and on conservatives abandoning Santorum when they see that a split conservative vote would hand Obama the win. Santorum can’t win in a three way race. Either Romney or Obama can. IMHO.

Mr. Arkadin on February 15, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Pretty interesting. In many ways, he could be the perfect 3rd party candidate.

Priscilla on February 15, 2012 at 10:11 PM

This is one of the funniest things I’ve read here in a long time. It’s Mittbot fantasizing in case he doesn’t get the nod. Let’s see: Mitt’s tanking with indies and libs and never did have the base, but by golly he could absolutely clean up if he ran third party!!!

What do you expect when the GOP is going to nominate one of Larry-Curly-Moe-Shemp….err, Gingrich-Paul-Romney-Santorum?

The Democrats found out the hard way in 2004 that you can’t win a presidential election on hate alone, you have to actually nominate an appealing opposition candidate too. Looks like Republicans haven’t learned from history.

the 2nd chart tells it all. The dems do a better job of convincing the working people that they care about their jobs. Even though the dem’s are redistributing more US jobs abroad. Republicans appear not to care as they refuse to protect our US economy as Reagan did. They refuse to get tuff w/China and other rule-breaking trading partners. We still have a transnationalis, GW Bush GOP. Not a Reagan GOP. DD

This is one of the funniest things I’ve read here in a long time. It’s Mittbot fantasizing in case he doesn’t get the nod. Let’s see: Mitt’s tanking with indies and libs and never did have the base, but by golly he could absolutely clean up if he ran third party!!!

ddrintn on February 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM

“There can’t possibly be anything wrong with our preferred candidate, dammit! The fact that he remains — after six years, and two successive tries — bumblingly and demonstrably incapable of selling himself to the party’s conservative base means he’s actually the perfect candidate to take on a sitting incumbent with the entire MSM in his hip pocket! He shares no responsibility whatsoever for his own failures, plural, in winning conservatives over! The candidate is flawless; it’s the GOP base that needs to be rejected — !!!” ;)

As I never tire of reminding the ululating jihadis of Team Pompadour: there’s a commonly accepted technical term for political parties which routinely scorn and deride their own voting base, and/or their repeatedly stated desires and concerns.

Except it’s not, not really. The only way unemployment numbers look good is if you disregard all those who have “given up”. Of course the problem is telling the voters that when the media is doing all it can to make things look as good as possible for Obama to get him reelected. Imagine this “improving” economy under Bush and how the media would portray it.

Obama is doing relatively well at this time, but he’s not running against the Republican yet and gas hasn’t hit $4 yet. The Republican candidate has so much material to take Obama down, they won’t be able to use all of it. If Romney’s ads can take out opponents with fabrications, then using facts against Obama should be equally effective. I’m not concerned yet. If Obama is still at 50% in October, we’ll have something to worry about.

Mitt’s tanking with indies and libs and never did have the base, but by golly he could absolutely clean up if he ran third party!!!

ddrintn on February 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM

It’s admittedly a pretty unlikely scenario, but, the fact is that most independents and fiscally conservative types do like Romney and can be persuaded to vote for him. At the moment, they are being turned off by the ugly attacks both on and from Mitt, and worried that, whoever the eventual GOP nominee is, he will have to toe the social conservatives’ line. Its not the attacks on Romney from the TrueCon™ base that are turning them against him, it’s his response to their attacks, which indies see as him moving too far right. If the GOP succeeds in humiliating Romney and his supporters, and essentially driving them from the party, he could potentially pull off a coalition of right center voters. I doubt that Romney would attempt an independent run, particularly if Obama’s approval continues to rise, but if the Republicans decide to brand themselves as a big-government, big-spending, deficit-friendly party, in thrall to a social conservative who is seen as hostile to women and gays (not saying that Santorum is, but that is the perception) there will likely be a 3rd party candidate who will pick up disaffected ficons who can’t vote Obama or Santorum. That is why it is so stupid and suicidal for purists in the party to be ABR….it’s one thing to support another candidate, it’s another to say that Romney is unacceptable as their nominee.

The economy’s looking up? Really? Which part of the country do you live in? The people I knew who were looking for work a month ago are still looking for work. The people who are living from paycheck to paycheck because of the exhorbitant rise in food and energy are going to go under with the new gas prices. The stores are no longer overstocked with goods. I’m and people like me are royally pi$$ed that the chosen few get the mortgages fixed while we’ve paid ours; we’re also unhappy that WE get to pay for other people’s cell phones and now, every woman’s contraception.

Last night I listened to Miller’s segment on O’Reilly and he talked about how the War of the World’s ended by defeating the mighty with the world’s smallest living thing…germs. He made the case that he thought gas would do Obama in, but I think he’s on to something and it’s more than gas.

Talking in general philosophical terms about big government and loss of freedom doesn’t get the reality TV crowd. We’ve got to use Reagan’s story telling ability and use the story about the 4 year old who got her lunch taken away, the little girl who got arrested for her lemonade stand; the prosecution of Navy SEALS for supposedly bloodying a terrorist’s nose; Obama telling us we’re lazy…it goes on and on and on.

And this total cr*p about Republicans being against contraceptives? One of those oh so wise establishment types (like the RNC perhaps) out to take out a 15 second commercial and run it on every station for two days.

Repeat, with video and picture of DNC charge, that Republicans are against contraception and then just say, “That’s an outright lie. Beware of DNC urban legends”….or do it some other way, but for heaven’s sake go on the attack before it sinks into the public psyche.

Putting Santorum out there is a guaranteed loss anyhow. At this point I am concentrating on other races. One things for sure. I am not voting for a religious zealot for president with zero executive experience.

Putting Santorum out there is a guaranteed loss anyhow. At this point I am concentrating on other races. One things for sure. I am not voting for a religious zealot for president with zero executive experience.

This is one of the funniest things I’ve read here in a long time. It’s Mittbot fantasizing in case he doesn’t get the nod. Let’s see: Mitt’s tanking with indies and libs and never did have the base, but by golly he could absolutely clean up if he ran third party!!!

ddrintn on February 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM

…if the Republicans decide to brand themselves as a big-government, big-spending, deficit-friendly party, in thrall to a social conservative who is seen as hostile to women and gays (not saying that Santorum is, but that is the perception) there will likely be a 3rd party candidate who will pick up disaffected ficons who can’t vote Obama or Santorum.

Priscilla on February 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Laugh all you want now, ddrintn, the time for laughing will soon be over. If Santorum becomes the Republican nominee, it is highly likely that there will be a third-party run by somebody. Given the likely suspects, you’d better hope it’s Romney.

Yet another worthless, ginned-up poll from the Obama-arse-kissing Communist News Network (CNN) in an attempt to shape public opinion–rather than measure it. This poll is absolutely useless and meaningless and they know it. Why on earth would anyone take any stock in this? What a joke.

Two weeks ago, I noticed in the …PPP poll…I think, that right before the question on who you would vote for, they asked if Romney paid enough in taxes…right in the poll.

You remind the voter what matters, and they vote in the predictable way.

Republicans like Gingrich and Santorum are pushing this populist idea that being wealthy makes you a robber barron. They never ever should have gone down that road, it is shameful. They are out on the campaign trail saying that Romney doesn’t care about the poor. What, and Romney is supposed to refute that every day?

These two candidates prefer the further swing to the left with Obama, if they can’t be the nominee. When the leftists catch the pendulum they are not going to let it swing back, you fools.

I don’t know why people get so worked up about polls before the right has a candidate…
All the people for Romney are gonna say Obama over Santorum to effect standing and vice versa so until there is a candidate I don’t care how well Obama does against a divided field.

If Santorum becomes the Republican nominee, it is highly likely that there will be a third-party run by somebody. Given the likely suspects, you’d better hope it’s Romney.

This was my thought exactly if Romney becomes the nominee. I guess that explains the results of the poll. The biggest challenge the nominee is going to have is bringing the party together. We have Romney and the Establishment to thank for that one.

It is very depressing to realize we’re going to have 4 more years of Obama. Overcoming the Christian nonacceptance of Mormonism was always going to be a tough road for Romney, but the class warfare from his won party did him in.
As an Independent I won’t vote for Santorum, and there are millions just like me. I wanted a president who could restore the economy and balance the budget. Turns out the most important thing to Republicans wasn’t the economy- it’s being sure a woman can’t have an abortion. The Pro-life issue is not a good litmus test for fixing the economy and it’s not a good measure for being electable.

The only way Democrats could win this year is if the election turned on social issues and not the economy.
The Republicans, as forecast, have literally grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.

Why any conservative or republican would believe any poll put out by any liberal/msm group, defies all reason…..why any conservative or republican blog would reprint such trash is beyond belief…..I have NEVER, EVER in my ENTIRE 58 YEARS seen ONE liberal/MSM poll that showed a republican in the lead or even doing well….even the Reagan landslides (he was down by 10 going into the election night)
Allah….you gotta get a life….and quit publishing this filth (because it definitely fits the definition of “obscene”)

So, ask yourself why the Republicans have so little credibility on this issue? Is it because the only balanced budget since the 60′s was offered by a Democratic President? Is it because they started two wars without paying for them? Is it because they run around the country trumpeting more tax cuts? Is it because they’re obviously a gang of bozos racing to the bottom in an attempt to secure the vote of a gang of right-wing freaks?

At any rate, the Republican brand is clearly soiled.

urban elitist on February 15, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Mr Obama entered office saying we have the worst economy since the Great Depression—untrue at the time, but maybe not now. He’s now saying he didn’t know.

He entered office saying we were broke. Then he proceeded to take out the old credit card and spend us into over a trillion dollars a year debt. The whole bloody war cost less than it cost us to pay off Obama’s doners and union bosses. Almost a trillion in stimulous; billions for clunkers; billions to overseas banks; billions to his buddies at Goldman Sachs; he increased the non-defense federal budget by 20%; EPA had an increase of something like 156%; he is the father of Fast and Furious as a means to take everyone’s gun away; Obamacare which has skyrocketed the cost of health care and we now understand is the means to destroy the churches; he is the most corrupt, the nastiest, most petty, self-serving, narcisist who has ever lived at 1600 PA Ave. I’ve lived through Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and they’re both altar boys compared to that lying socialist Hugo Chavez wanna be.

I’ve watched and listened to the left for 45 years and they believe in nothing but their own power. They do not give a rat’s patootee about anyone but themselves and their demand for entitlements and the fruit earned by the sweat of someone else’s brow.

Right now? I KNOW they’re cooking the books on unemployment numbers. Noone is getting a decent job. No one. I know no one who was unemployed in October who is employed now. Those who worked in barely subsistance jobs are still working there. Those families who are living from pay check to pay check are going deeper and deeper into the hole because inflation is taking their ability to buy gas to get to work and food to feed their family.

Please don’t talk to us about poised brands. The Democrat Party should just go ahead and add “People’s Socialist” in front of its name.

I spoke to my wife about this said “we’re doomed” and “how is this possible”. And she spelled it out quickly and succinctly, she said:

“Free money and stupidity” .

I think she nailed it.

Republican’s blew this before it started. Good or bad, Romney like McCain before and Santorum next time, he is the chosen one, and he is a one issue candidate: the economy. If the economy starts to turn, and it has, having an Obama-lite and dull candidate like Romney, will lose us the election. And here we are.